Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Taylor v. Hays

23 Citing cases

  1. Broadhead v. Terpening

    611 So. 2d 949 (Miss. 1992)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that the owner of the larger tract cannot create a landlocked parcel by conveying an interior portion, so easement is conveyed whether described or not when the dominant estate is deeded; easements by necessity run with the land and are deeded with each conveyance regardless of description

    Rule 8, Miss.R.Civ.P. Broadhead's contention seems based on a belief that an easement by implication is somehow different from an easement by necessity, when in reality they are the same. Taylor v. Hays, 551 So.2d 906, 908 (Miss. 1989); Pleas v. Thomas, 75 Miss. 495, 500, 22 So. 820 (1897). The type easement in existence has been named an easement by implication in some cases and in other cases an easement by necessity.

  2. Huggins v. Wright

    774 So. 2d 408 (Miss. 2000)   Cited 19 times
    Affirming grant of "easement of necessity . . . for ingress/egress and for utilities"

    An easement by necessity arises by implied grant when a part of a commonly-owned tract of land is severed in such a way that either portion of the property has been rendered inaccessible except by passing over the other portion or by trespassing on the lands of another. Taylor v. Hays, 551 So.2d 906, 908 (Miss. 1989). The fact that the dominant and servient estates originated from the severance of a "commonly-owned tract of land" is undisputed in the present case.

  3. Vinoski v. Plummer

    893 So. 2d 239 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 4 times

    " Id. at (¶ 15). It is undisputed that both the Vinoskis and Plummers received their land from what was originally a common source as required by the common law doctrine. Taylor v. Hays, 551 So.2d 906, 908 (Miss. 1989) (citing Pleas v. Thomas, 75 Miss. 495, 22 So. 820 (1897)). This issue is without merit.

  4. Pitts v. Foster

    743 So. 2d 1066 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 16 times

    It is well-established that an easement by necessity arises by implied grant when a part of a commonly-owned tract of land is severed in such a way that either portion of the property has been rendered inaccessible except by passing over the other portion or by trespassing on the lands of another. E.g., Taylor v. Hays, 551 So.2d 906, 908 (Miss. 1989); Medina v. State of Mississippi ex rel. Sumner, 354 So.2d 779, 784 (Miss. 1978); and Pleas v. Thomas, 75 Miss. 495, 500, 22 So. 820, 821 (1897).

  5. Borne v. Estate of Carraway

    118 So. 3d 571 (Miss. 2013)   Cited 8 times
    Finding Thirteenth Amendment challenge to court order requiring repair of culvert system "patently meritless"

    “[A]n easement by necessity arises by implied grant when a part of a commonly-owned tract of land is severed in such a way that either portion of the property has been rendered inaccessible except by passing over the other portion or by trespassing on the lands of another.” Taylor v. Hays, 551 So.2d 906, 908 (Miss.1989). “An easement by necessity requires no written conveyance because it is a vested right for successive holders of the dominant tenement and remains binding on successive holders of the servient tenement.”

  6. Borne v. Estate of Carraway

    NO. 2011-CA-00267-SCT (Miss. Nov. 1, 2012)

    "[A]n easement by necessity arises by implied grant when a part of a commonly-owned tract of land is severed in such a way that either portion of the property has been rendered inaccessible except by passing over the other portion or by trespassing on the lands of another." Taylor v. Hays, 551 So. 2d 906, 908 (Miss. 1989). "An easement by necessity requires no written conveyance because it is a vested right for successive holders of the dominant tenement and remains binding on successive holders of the servient tenement."

  7. Sullivan v. Estate of Maddox

    283 So. 3d 222 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 10 times

    Second, the Maddoxes claim that the finding that the easement "no longer existed because of merger is in error because it fails to recognize that there was not a complete merger of the dominant and servient estates." They cite Taylor v. Hays , 551 So. 2d 906 (Miss. 1989). In that case, the supreme court addressed whether the trial court properly removed an access easement.

  8. Threlkeld v. Sisk

    2007 CA 944 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 9 times
    Finding landowner proved the elements of a prescriptive easement over a gravel road to access their landlocked farmland

    The chancellor found that Mitchell and Grace had an easement by necessity over the gravel road in order to access their landlocked farmland from Lee County Road 530. "[A]n easement by necessity arises by implied grant when a part of a commonly-owned tract of land is severed in such a way that either portion of the property has been rendered inaccessible except by passing over the other portion or by trespassing on the lands of another." Taylor v. Hays, 551 So.2d 906, 908 (Miss. 1989). "An easement by necessity requires no written conveyance because it is a vested right for successive holders of the dominant tenement and remains binding on successive holders of the servient tenement."

  9. Leaf River Forest Prod. v. Rowell

    2000 CA 1606 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 19 times
    In Rowell, Turnage (the owner of the servient estate) used the gate and fence as part of his cattle operation which he had run since acquiring the land in 1969.

    As a general rule, "an easement by necessity arises by implied grant when a part of a commonly-owned tract of land is severed in such a way that either portion of the property has been rendered inaccessible except by passing over the other portion or by trespassing the lands of another." Taylor v. Hays, 551 So.2d 906, 908 (Miss. 1989). The easement by necessity is a well established doctrine that derives from the common law. Cox, 733 So.2d at 356 (¶¶ 11-13).

  10. Cox v. Trustmark National Bank

    733 So. 2d 353 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 8 times
    Stating that the easement may only traverse "land that once comprised the larger tract, and not over just any adjacent lands that might be a convenient way to a public road."

    ¶ 7. The question of whether an easement by necessity arose may appear completely moot. That certainly is Trustmark's argument. Regardless of whether the easement arose, it expired when the land was reconveyed to the same individual. A joinder of the dominant and servient estates creates a merger of title. Thornton v. McLeary, 161 Miss. 697, 137 So. 785, 786 (1931) (easement by necessity continues unless there is a merger of the two estates); Taylor v. Hays, 551 So.2d 906, 908 (Miss. 1989) (easement by necessity expires when the necessity no longer exists). ¶ 8.